Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

Imagine buying a brand new 2013 vehicle with a no-lemon warranty and finding out your replacement is a used 2010 model. According to DTV this is ok.

You're comparing apples to oranges there.

DTV policy is plain scum.

Who's is better?

If I have an HR24 that dies I shouldn't have to accept anything less than an HR24 replacement. If they don't have any refurbished ones then too bad - replacement will be new. That's the fair and honest policy people expect.

HR24's get replaced with HR24's. That's been well documented on dbstalk.com.

In everyone's rush (at least thru page 2) to defend DirecTV, they seemed to have missed the most logical response to the problem. If all the equipment is functionally equivalent, they shouldn't have to worry about upsetting new customers, right. Everything should be good. Both new and established customers would be happy.

Some new customers get refurbs on installs. It all depends on what the installer has.

No, don't assign my reaction to something you don't know anything about. As I said earlier, subsequent leasing of used equipment to a different subscriber should have a reduced fee.

And then you and other customers would complain that someone else paid less. Read any threads on pricing around here and you'll find that exact same thing going on.

If you don't like it then vote with your wallet. Take your hard earned money elsewhere and show DirecTV how bad you think their policy is. If I don't like how a company does business I don't do business with them, it's that simple.

And then you and other customers would complain that someone else paid less. Read any threads on pricing around here and you'll find that exact same thing going on.

If you don't like it then vote with your wallet. Take your hard earned money elsewhere and show DirecTV how bad you think their policy is. If I don't like how a company does business I don't do business with them, it's that simple.

So you agree with everything that Directv does businesswise? I find that hard to believe. I mostly like Directv and their product. I'm not going to leave because I don't agree with every policy of theirs.

It would have been easy if the DVRs in question had external power supplies. Then he would have gotten a new power supply and still kept recordings, favorites, etc. External power supply would likely be better on the DVR being it wouldn't be as hot inside the case leading to drive failures.

No, don't assign my reaction to something you don't know anything about. As I said earlier, subsequent leasing of used equipment to a different subscriber should have a reduced fee.

But that's not how it works in business. Profit is the name of the game. Companies like Avis, Hertz, Aaron's, and Rent A Center lease used equipment to new customers at the same price the previous renter received. If they didn't they'd all be bankrupt.

Imagine buying a brand new 2013 vehicle with a no-lemon warranty and finding out your replacement is a used 2010 model. According to DTV this is ok.

You're comparing apples to oranges there.

How so? Because of the "lease" terminology BS? Because a vehicle can actually be repaired rather than having to be entirely replaced?

Scratch buy and substitute lease. Lease a 2013 vehicle with a no-lemon guarantee that allows replacement with anything they want. After all, I'm just paying a lease fee to have 4 wheels that carry me down the road...

DTV policy is plain scum.

Who's is better?

That makes it ok? Seems to me that a significant number of people here think it isn't ok. Sure, while their pseudo-monopoly holds they can get away with it. But there is a price to be paid and eventually it will hurt. The trend is for people to stop using services like this so it isn't the "other guy" they need to be worried about.

Replacements should be of equal or better features/performance. If I have an HR24 that dies I shouldn't have to accept anything less than an HR24 replacement. If they don't have any refurbished ones then too bad - replacement will be new. That's the fair and honest policy people expect.

HR24's get replaced with HR24's. That's been well documented on dbstalk.com.

I don't follow everything that is discussed here. I take it that this isn't an official policy? Was it true with the previous models that if you had the current model that you got a current model replacement? What happens when the HR25 comes out? Do HR24 still get replaced with HR24? Or does it then fall into the past model pool where you get anything? Or does the HR24 represent a new class/pool/tier? Or is the difference that an HR24 customer is still under contract commitment?

The OP is embarrassed at having started this thread and currently wishes his name was no longer attached to it.

Don't be. Your specific complaint may be a bit thin. But threads like this repeatedly point out the mistakes DTV makes. Maybe, if enough "bad press" here gets their attention, they might do something about it.

What they need to do is pretty simple actually. Create a crystal-clear policy that covers all the normal lifecycle issues. Publish the policy. Follow the policy. Duh.

Their policy is clear. I understand the policy. You ask for a replacement, you get grab-bag.

I do not like the policy. I do not like getting the very same DVR make and model except date-stamped two years older than mine that is in the beginning stages of demonstrating an ability to go up in smoke.

It's that simple. That's what my ill-advised rant was in sum total.

Don't be. Your specific complaint may be a bit thin. But threads like this repeatedly point out the mistakes DTV makes. Maybe, if enough "bad press" here gets their attention, they might do something about it.

What they need to do is pretty simple actually. Create a crystal-clear policy that covers all the normal lifecycle issues. Publish the policy. Follow the policy. Duh.

------------------------------------------------------------------------A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.